Texas Education Agency (TEA) Commissioner Mike Morath provided his regularly scheduled update to the State Board of Education (SBOE) at its April 9 meeting. Morath’s comments at the April meeting focused solely on educator misconduct and related laws. 

Morath offered a detailed look into how the Texas Education Agency (TEA) handles parental complaints and educator misconduct. His remarks sought to clarify a complex system that many parents and educators often find confusing. Morath began by highlighting a new tool available on the TEA website, the Parent Complaint Navigator. While it’s a helpful resource, he emphasized that parents should usually begin by addressing their concerns at the local level—starting with teachers, principals, or district administrators. That said, TEA still provides a parallel process for handling complaints filed directly with the agency. 

Morath encouraged SBOE members to share the tool with constituents and invited feedback for improving it. He asserted that continuous improvement is a guiding principle at TEA. 

A major focus of Morath’s presentation was how the state distinguishes between certified and non-certified school employees. This distinction matters because it determines who has oversight: 

• Certified staff (including most teachers and principals) fall under the jurisdiction of the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC), which can investigate misconduct, impose sanctions, and even revoke teaching credentials. 
• Non-certified staff—which includes bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and even some teachers—are not overseen by SBEC. This means the state has far less authority to act on complaints against them, unless a criminal violation is involved. 

Morath noted that nearly 50% of Texas’s first-year teachers this year were non-certified, meaning many classroom teachers fall outside of SBEC’s direct regulatory reach. Morath pointed out a troubling legal limitation: TEA cannot act on misconduct complaints against non-certified individuals unless they come from the district or involve criminal conduct. If a parent reports serious concerns about a non-certified teacher, the agency is legally restricted from using that complaint as the basis for action. This gap in oversight has already been flagged to lawmakers, and legislation is being considered to address it. 

Educator investigations can be triggered in several ways: 

• Reports from districts. 
• Complaints from the general public (only valid for certified educators). 
• Criminal background checks via Department of Public Safety or FBI data feeds. 
• Notifications from other states about actions taken against educators. 

TEA’s role, Morath explained, is regulatory—not criminal. The agency’s main question is this: Should this individual be allowed to work in a Texas public school? That’s different from determining whether someone should face criminal charges, which the purview of handled by law enforcement. 

In the past fiscal year, TEA received: 

• Over 3,600 educator misconduct reports from districts. 
• Nearly 30,000 criminal history “hits” related to school staff. 
• More than 2,500 general public complaints. 
• 4,600-plus academic integrity concerns (involving adults, not students). 

Morath also noted that TEA receives thousands of other complaints ranging from special education disputes to data anomalies and contract abandonment cases. 

Morath’s presentation made it clear that there are significant policy and legal gaps in how misconduct is regulated, especially for non-certified staff. ATPE is advocating at the Capitol to close the uncertified teacher loopholes and talking to legislators about the need for better safeguards and more consistent oversight across all roles in public education. 

It’s critical for educators and stakeholders to stay informed about these processes to better support our colleagues, protect our students, and advocate for systems that are both fair and functional. 

After the presentation, SBOE members asked the commissioner questions on a wide range of topics, including educator misconduct, charter school transparency and the limits of TEA oversight. Morath fielded questions for over an hour, offering insight into what the agency can (and can’t) do under current law. 

Here’s a breakdown of the most pressing issues discussed: 

Educator misconduct and the “Do Not Hire” list 

• Certified vs. uncertified staff: A consistent concern was the gap in accountability for uncertified staff. Morath reiterated that only certified employees fall under SBEC’s full range of oversight. Uncertified staff (including many first-year teachers) can’t be sanctioned the same way unless there’s a criminal offense. 
• Investigations and hiring: Even while under investigation, educators can still be hired elsewhere. Morath cited this as a loophole and asserted a change in state law is needed. ATPE believes that due process is necessary because false allegations are made. 
• Transparency with school boards: Several members voiced concern that school boards are often left in the dark. There’s currently no legal requirement for superintendents to notify their boards during investigations, though TEA investigates superintendents if they fail to follow reporting protocols. 
• Due process: Morath defended the process, noting that while only 526 of 800,000 educators were added to the “Do Not Hire” list in FY24, every case must be handled carefully and lawfully. 

Local control as it relates to state oversight

• Special education and district leadership: SBOE member Brandon Hall (R–Weatherford) called attention to widespread special education issues, especially when tied to poor district leadership. Morath emphasized that TEA only intervenes when local districts break the law, not in cases of general incompetence. Forty-five TEA staff members handle over 1,200 districts. 
• Role of local boards: Morath reminded SBOE members that in a system of local control, superintendents and local boards are responsible for compliance. TEA can appoint monitors, conservators, or even boards of managers—but only when the agency determines statute has been violated. 

Charter schools

• Mixed views on impact: SBOE member Rebecca Bell-Metereau (D–San Marcos) raised concerns about funding disparities and dropout rates in charters. Morath countered with claims of positive student outcomes, even though critics push back on the validity of those metrics. 
• Teacher certification not required: Charter schools are not required to hire certified teachers. The retort continues to be "high quality" is based on performance scores, not staff credentials. However, this seems to be at odds with the agency’s general stance on uncertified educators. 

Other notable issues

• Notification gaps: SBOE member Julie Pickren (R–Pearland) raised concerns about school district law enforcement only reporting to superintendents, sometimes delaying action. She was concerned that school board members sometimes have no idea when there is an investigation when only an ISD police department is involved in the investigation. Morath said external police should also be notified so that they can do an independent investigation and that new laws may mandate broader notifications. 
• Houston ISD takeover: SBOE member Evelyn Brooks (R–Frisco) asked about the lack of elected leadership in Houston ISD. Morath said performance data is strong and pledged to share updates. He acknowledged the takeover exit plan is not yet finalized. 
• Training and prevention: SBOE member Gustavo Reveles (D–El Paso) asked about an apparent uptick in unethical behavior. Morath said new training tools are in development but are only mandatory if the Legislature requires them. 
• Criminal background checks: SBOE member Pam Little (R–Fairview) expressed concerns that background checks don’t reveal enough. Morath said personality testing is up to local districts. 
• Public awareness: Several board members stressed the importance of due process, public trust, and ensuring accurate communication about educator misconduct in the media. 

Morath acknowledged legislative gaps around educator certification, misconduct reporting, and employment restrictions—and encouraged board members to push for legal changes where needed. He stated he is committed to improving transparency, especially regarding HISD, and to clarifying what information SBOE members are entitled to access. The Q&A made one thing clear—there are critical holes in the state’s oversight of uncertified staff and district-level transparency, and addressing them will require legislative action, not just agency tweaks. 

The SBOE began its meeting Monday and will continue to meet through Friday. Look for a full recap of the meeting here on Teach the Vote.